Laserfiche WebLink
Section 3 <br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer <br />The above considerations assume the existing water <br />rights system (laws, rules, etc.) does not change. It <br />may not be likely but not impossible that some parts <br />of the system could be modified to a small extent if <br />the potential savings is significant. <br />The CWCB conducted an in-depth analysis of the <br />issues related to water salvage in Colorado in the <br />document "An Analysis of Water Salvage Issues in <br />Colorado" that was adopted and approved for <br />transmittal to the Colorado General Assembly on <br />January 22,1992 pursuant to HB 91-1154. This <br />document is on the CWCB website. <br />3.11.2 Technical Subcommittee <br />Questions <br />The following questions regarding agricultural <br />efficiency were developed by the Conservation and <br />Efficiency TRT as priorities to address during the <br />TRT process. <br />1. What are the projected long-term savings from <br />agricultural conservation and efficiency <br />alternatives? <br />2. What are the issues with ability to pay for <br />agricultural users? <br />3. What are the main institutional barriers <br />associated with agricultural conservation <br />besides cost? <br />4. Which agricultural efficiency measures are legal, <br />but may have significant negative impacts to <br />other water rights and the environment? <br />3.11.3 Screening Criteria for <br />Evaluating Agricultural Efficiency <br />Opportunities <br />The following screening criteria were developed by <br />CWCB and CDM staff and presented to the TRT as <br />proposed screening criteria. This screening exercise <br />was not conducted due to lack of participation by <br />subcommittee members, but it is proposed that <br />future efforts should use the proposed screening <br />criteria and approach to evaluate the potential for <br />agricultural efficiency measures. <br />1. Compact obligations are would not be <br />harmed if efficiencies were implemented in <br />area. Determine which basins are eliminated or <br />have limitations on the basis of compact <br />obligations. <br />2. The reduction in return flows does not harm <br />Colorado water rights. Select areas where <br />reduction in return flows would not harm <br />Colorado water rights. These are most likely <br />going to be in water districts that are near the <br />state line and do not have significant in-state <br />water rights downstream or those downstream <br />rights have other sources of supply and would <br />not be injured from the potential efficiency <br />improvements. South Platte, Gunnison, <br />Colorado, Yampa, White and Animas are likely <br />candidates. <br />3. Size of the system (e.g.,10,000 AFY diverted). <br />Select systems that divert >10,000 AFY, using <br />Decision Support Systems (DSS), and <br />Hydrobase diversion records. <br />4. Areas that divert 4-S+ AF/acre at the <br />headgate of the irrigation ditch system. The <br />DSS could be used for those basins. In non-DSS <br />basins, estimates of irrigated acres could be <br />made from water commissioner records or other <br />sources, in order to calculate AF/acre river <br />headgate diversions. <br />5. Are return flows from inefficiencies <br />supporting the environment (instream flows, <br />wetlands, etc)? CWCB instream flow rights, <br />3-38 FINAL DRAFT <br />